The main difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that the rate of killings at this point in Iraq is higher that it was at this point in Vietnam.
If the policy is to more rapidly Iraqify the situation – as in Vietnamization during the Vietnam War – then that is another version of cutting and running. One way to cut and run is to simply say we’re pulling out. Another is to prematurely turn over security to Iraqi forces and draw down American forces. That’s a near-term prescription for disaster.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del)
The United States will fail in Iraq if our adversaries believe they can outlast us. If our troop deployment schedules are more important than our staying power, we embolden our enemies and make it harder for our friends to take risks on our behalf. When the United States announces a schedule for training and deploying Iraqi security officers, then announces the acceleration of that schedule, then accelerates it again, it sends a signal of desperation, not certitude. When in the course of days we increase by thousands our estimate of the numbers of Iraqis trained, it sounds like somebody is cooking the books. When we do this as our forces are coming under increasing attack, we suggest to friends and allies alike that our ultimate goal in Iraq is leaving as soon as possible – not meeting our strategic objective of building a free and democratic country in the heart of the Arab world.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz)
Well, I agree with these statements completely elucidator, especially McCain (who was my choice for president over Bush). However I’m confused. I thought that the left, and especially Europe WANTED the US to turn over power right now and get out asap. Weren’t they yammering for just this thing pretty much since the Iraq army folded?? Now you seem to be saying that this isn’t what they want. I agree with you, if Bush does this, if he basically turns over power to the Iraqi’s right now, reconstituting their army in haste and throwing them into the field at this time so that we can withdraw, it will be a disaster. Hell, it will be MORE disasterous than Vietnam could ever dream of being…in the end, Vietnam had nothing vital the world needed. Iraq on the other hand does.
If this comes to pass as you are speculating, I’ll be more than willing to fully conceed that Iraq IS starting to look more and more like Vietnam…a Vietnam with all the disasterous implications too.
So you really think Bush is that strong for next year? 
I’ve been watching the trends and it seemed to me that he was falling, not rising (in spite of his monetary advantage). It seemed that every month his numbers were going down a bit more. The only bright spot for him seemed to be the economy recovering, but even there, my understanding is that, so far, its been a jobless recovery, and might remain so over all.
-XT
As to GeeDubya’s prospects, one must keep in mind that a year in politics is a geological age. And he has an awesome advantage in money. And, of course, a solid core of partisans who will vote for him, regardless.
What is categorized as “the Left” in American politics barely even exists in comparison to the staunchly resolute base of the “Right”. As Will Rogers once said, “I’m not a member of an organized political party, I am a Democrat”.
There was a time when “conservative” meant someone who was as committed to social justice as a “liberal”, but might disagree as to methods and timing, a prudent, cautious approach. Such men as Barry Goldwater come to mind. Now, regretably, it is firmly in the stranglehold of such two-legged horrors as Tom DeLay.
But I digress…
Those of us of an age to remember those dark years of Viet Nam are horrified at the prospect of that sort of politics coming round again. But, as the 2002 mid-terms clearly demonstrated, the Tighty Righties haven’t the least qualms as to resorting to loathsome tactics.
To my eye, the wholesale rush to turn this mess over to somebody…anybody…else is a symptom of panic. As I’ve outlined above, just about the only prospect for “Peace with Honor” lies with constituting and supporting a largely military dominated Iraq, Saddamism without Saddam. And, as I’ve said, I think this may be the least horrendous item on a menu of horrors. “Liberation”, my ass.
You thought wrong. 
For me, at least, while I wish we didn’t go into Iraq to begin with, I realize that we’re now stuck there, and have a moral obligation to “tough it out.” Leaving a shattered Iraq high and dry while Haliburton continues to steal its oil is morally indefensible.
Nope. Perhaps if you asked “the Left” as opposed to getting secondhand reports from the conservative media, you would have a better understanding of what some of us think. It’s not like we’re hard to find, especially on the SDMB…
A $400 million re-election war chest buys a lot of bullshit.
It seems the USA has caught a tiger by the tail and now cannot let go. China, Iran and other countries in that region have to be salivating at the prospect of the USA being bogged down and worn out in Iraq for the next 10 years at this rate of guerrilla war and will make sure the Iraqi resistance suffers no shortages. If the conflict is kept simmering at the right level then in ten years time you have an American population who is sick and tired and desperate to get out no matter what. Then, after that, China and other countries have a window of another 10- 15 years where they know the USA will not get involved in further adventures unless they absolutely have to. I can see China salivating at the prospect. Imagine 7 or 8 years from now if Iraq continues at this rate. The USA would be very weary by then. Who would support a military adventure against China when China decides to intervene somewhere? Americans will say “we could not win Iraq and we’re going to take on China? No way!”
McCain’s full statement is worth reading. It’s mostly exhortations to the people to stay the course, make Iraq free and democratic, etc., and eshortations to Bush that there aren’t enough US forces or good planning to do so. But he does address the Vietnam comparisons that this thread is actually about:
Virtually every point he makes in that passage is either wishful or wrong, unfortunately.
No popular insurgency? Sure looks like one.
Killers wanting Saddam’s restoration? Maybe not - but then we shouldn’t talk about restoring their organization and putting them in charge.
Our opponents despised by the “vast majority”? Not at all clear.
They have no sanctuary? They come from somewhere we haven’t found, don’t they?
No superpower patron? Don’t need one; just a supply of arms.
Cannot carry the banner of nationalism? Sure they can.
Our ally is not a corrupt government but a freedom-loving people? False comparison between a people and a government - there is no reason to believe the Vietnamese people weren’t like people anywhere, and there is no reason to believe that a near-term Iraqi government won’t be as corrupt as any other in that part of the world (quite the opposite, in fact).
We lost the will to fight in Vietnam? Not that the nationalists didn’t lose their will to defend and control their own country?
Tet was a massive battlefield defeat for NV? Yes, but it wasn’t a battlefield war.
The light at the end of the tunnel did not exist? True - but admitting that invalidates the rest of the argument, Admiral, sorry.
Don’t think that’s an option sailor, there’s a re-election to be won and I suspect the administration realises, finally, it can’t tough this out. Policy change, in the middle of.
Fwiw, I think we have a game of bluff for the very highest stakes possible; is this where the world combines to rein in the single super power, and others rise to once more balance the scales after this unusual post-Berlin Wall period?
I think we might, but it depends on the bluffing and who calls who when.
For the empire, worst-case scenario is to leave Saudi and leave Iraq; at that point the US doesn’t control its own economic destiny and, imho, that is the Achilles heel of any empire. Power begins to slip away. The US would have passed its peak.
In turn, that, of course, is the best-case scenario for all the other major players who include Islam, the UN, the EU and China – in short, the world wants a balance restored, after all, that’s in everyone’s best interests save the US.
So Cheney and Bush are up against it IMHO, what they need to try and achieve now is negotiating leverage for handing the administration of Iraq over to those better experienced in nation-building while maintaining a presence – control even – over the key oil-related industries; drilling, refining, the ports and pipelines, etc.
But first they must regain negotiating leverage, and that can only be done by suppressing the resistance in Iraq.
I still believe the US cannot walk away with nothing and remain the single super power so, somehow, this has to morph from Afghanistan circa 1982 to Cambodia circa 1992 within nine (or so) months and with the US still patrolling the oil fields.
It’s going to take some dealing. But I think that’s the new policy.
Suppressing the resistance in the Philippines took half a century, and the US had to bail even then.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are stuck as you say - internationalizing this will require a complete change of the cast of characters in Washington. The world doesn’t have to contemplate how to handle it until after 11/5/04.
I didn’t say they were going to succeed, I said I think it’s the new policy/field strategy. They’ll be working on other options, but I think they have to try and suppress the resistance in order to build negotiating leverage.
I agree.
It is definitely a popular insurgency with popular support.
I do not know if they want Saddam’s restorarion but it is clear they do not want to be ruled by America.
"Despised by the “vast majority”? Maybe by some. That is why they all agree they want the Americans sout: so they can the proceed to fighting and killing each other.
Sanctuary? The entire country is their sanctuary and they move about with greater freedom and safety than the occupying forces.
No superpower patron? This is really wishful thinking. China, Iran and others may not openly and blatantly supply them but it is in their interest that the resistance are well supplied and they will see to it that it happens. They will not publicise it and they don’t need to. Just see that it happens. If the US government believes its competitors are going to help the USA to maintain it hegemony as sole superpower then the US government is delusional. China will just pull up a lawnchair and watch as the USA sinks in the quicksand. oficially it will just be watching but if you look closely you will see their smile and their hidden hands are pulling the USA further into the deep sand and not away. What did the USA expect? A few decades later, when history is written, it will all come out to the light but not while it is happening.
Cannot carry the banner of nationalism? Of course the can and they do in fact. What world does McCain live in?
Our ally is not a corrupt government but a freedom-loving people? The “ally” is a corrupt government imposed by the USA. There have already been plenty of complaints about the governmnet being corrupt and about them being outsiders imposed by the USA. Without the USA that government would last a matter of minutes before they were eaten alive. As similar to Vietnam as you can get.
We lost the will to fight in Vietnam? The Vietnamese outlasted the USA in spite of heavier losses and the Iraqis will also outlast the USA. It is very simple: The USA can go home while the Iraqis have nowhere to go: that is their home.
As much as I admire McCain as a person and as a hero I believe he does not truly understand the situation.
“The left”, insofar as it can be said to have a unified position, wants Iraq turned over to the U.N. and an international coalition of nations willing to support the effort with troops, to be rebuilt into a democratic nation, much as what resulted from the breakup of Yugoslavia is now a set of reasonably functional nation states that aren’t bogged down with an insurgency.
Note that this doesn’t mean the left wants Iraq broken up, only that we want a real international effort to rebuild Iraq by a body that’s done it successfully a few times. Yes, the U.S. has rebuilt a few nations–planning for the governance of postwar Germany and Japan started in 1942–but that infrastructure is gone, replaced with Neo-con pipe-dreams about flower-throwing Iraqis ready to step in and take over.
Er, the UN has not been that successful. The UN had nothing to do with the republics of Yugoslavia except for Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which STILL are not fully self-governing. In Kosovo, it’s not even partially self-governing after five years.
And most recently, we transformed Grenada and Panama into democracies. It is the US with a proven track record, not the UN.
Grenada! Yes! My personal favorite! Operation Urgent Fury!
“Delta One, describe the target environment.”
“Roger, Delta Leader. The Target is in the carriage, in the baby’s left hand, repeat, left hand! Range, eight yards.”
“What is the condition of the target, Delta One?”
“The target is moist, and shows considerable signs of gumming…”
“Delta One, any signs of tooth marks? Do we have dentition positive status?”
“That’s a negative, Delta Leader, repeat, negative. We have no indication of effective dentition. Recommmend no more than two armored divisions in order to secure target…”
Nevertheless, we took down a dictator and democracy was the end result.
And it’s enlightening how you mock it when Americans died during the liberation of that island. They faced Cubans, not babies in strollers.
Tell you what, Adaher. You want to open a debate about Grenada, I’m your guy. But you’re gonna want to get your facts straight first. Just a fair warning, wouldn’t want to take advantage.
And please note: I will do you the honor of presuming that you’re already embarassed about insulting my patriotism. That a single American soldiers life was thrown away on this puerile excercise is disgusting. Obscene.
But it damn sure wasn’t my idea.
Puerile exercise? Cuba was interfering in the affairs of another state. We interfered to stop their interference. Grenada is today a democracy thanks to that action.
It is the US with a proven track record [of implementing democracies], and not the UN.
- Ok elucidator, elucidate adaher’s point*.
Point?
I’m convinced, Milum. An insightful, well supported and admirably ‘nuanced’ argument, as usual.
And with superb use of brackets and underlining! Pure quality.